The Problem Of Judicial Review

The position of the Supreme Court in American society is quite simple: to interpret the Constitution and settle case disputes with the limitations that are binded by our law. While one perspective of the debate states that the court is unbending in their ability to make policy, while the other claims that the court breaks free from these limitations that are binded by our law and are politically dynamic in nature.These are known as The dynamic court and the constrained court are two alternative constructions of the role of U.S. courts in producing significant social reform (Rosenberg, 1991). The balance of these two views rely on the interaction between doctrinal,

The Federalists Papers were written in the eighteenth century by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay in an effort to persuade New Yorkers to ratify the new U.S. Constitution. These papers are said to be the key that unlocks the true interpretation and meaning of the Unites Sates Constitution. One of the controversial topics relating to the Constitution that the Federalists Papers help to straighten out, is the practice of judicial review by the Supreme Court. In this essay, I will point out many of the examples Alexander Hamilton gives in Federalist No. 78 that support the idea of the Supreme Court having power of judicial review over all levels of

Nevertheless, some critics argue that the judidicary, some critics argue that the judiciary are the final arbiters of what is meant by the principle of separation of powers, which therefore provides the judiciary with subordinate levels of power. Moreover Chief Justice Hughes concluding that the ‘Constitution is what the judges say it is’ due to ability to interpret the constitution. In America, although Congress may new laws affecting courts, ultimately judges decide.

The life of every American citizen, whether they realize it or not, is influenced by one entity--the United States Supreme Court. This part of government ensures that the freedoms of the American people are protected by checking the laws that are passed by Congress and the actions taken by the President. While the judicial branch may have developed later than its counterparts, many of the powers the Supreme Court exercises required years of deliberation to perfect. In the early years of the Supreme Court, one man’s judgement influenced the powers of the court systems for years to come. John Marshall was the chief justice of the Supreme Court from 1801 to 1835, and as the only lasting Federalist influence in a newly Democratic-Republican

The system of checks and balances represents the foundation for the American democracy as it ensures that no one branch of the American government can become too powerful. During the Jackson administration, an important ruling from the Supreme Court was released in the historic case of Worcester v. Georgia (1832). In this case, two missionaries were appealing their arrest for protesting the state of Georgia’s legal encroachment on Cherokee law and land (Tindall 344). Chief Justice John Marshall found that the Cherokee nation was “a distinct political community” (Marshall qtd. in Tindall 344) and therefore not subject to Georgia law. Marshall’s ordered that Worcester, one of the arrested missionaries, must be released from Georgia prison, however, Georgia refused to release him. President Jackson, who wanted to decrease the federal bureaucracy and emphasize state’s power, decided to not enforce the Supreme Court’s verdict by stating that “he had no authority to intervene in Georgia” (Tindall 345). This, of course, is untrue as the federal government represents the “supreme law of the land” as dictated by the US constitution (United States of America). Jackson, however, refuses to take this up this responsibility and neglects his constitutional rights and duties and

Two years prior, President John Adams had hastily appointed Marbury to the Supreme Court on his last night in office, in order to secure the Supreme Court for the Federalists. However, when Adams was replaced with Republican Thomas Jefferson, the new president dismissed these so-called midnight judges (Schweikart & Allen, 2004). Marbury was one of the dismissed, and he came to Justice Marshall demanding that he be reappointed to the Supreme Court. While Marshall could not order the president to have the Secretary of State, James Madison reinstate Marbury, he invented a check that ensured the House of Representatives would never wield unfettered power. Marshall assumed for the Supreme Court the power to declare laws passed by the other branches unconstitutional. By doing this, Marshall made the Supreme Court far more powerful and influential than before (“John Marshall”, 2016). Marbury vs. Madison was the first step in inventing this momentous check and creating more balance between the three branches of

The constant theme throughout Relic is that the ineffectiveness of the American governing system originates with the Constitution itself. From Howell and Moe’s perspective, the Constitution has failed to evolve with the expansions and the needs of the country, with the biggest issue resting with the Legislative Branch (Howell and Moe xii). As a result of the Framers' fear of an overly authoritative executive, Congress was imbued with the most power.

All these checks on the judicial branch lead to a policy of what is known as judicial self-restraint --where the Court never hands down a decision so controversial that the other two branches seek to reduce the Court's power (Woll 515). On the opposite side, Wolfe and many others feel that this power grabbing has occured:

“Centinel”, the pseudonym for Samuel Bryan, in 1787, argues against the three branches of government system proposed in the Constitution. He believes that this system of “checks and balances” is too complicated, hides corruption and tyranny, and infringes on citizen’s liberties. Centinel No. 1 questions the creation of a three government branch system with the intent to persuade states from adopting the Constitution as is. This article, along with other Anti-Federalist articles, stimulated debate from the local to the national levels to better regulate government power.

The Supreme Court of the United States is perhaps the most eminent judicial branch in the world and has served for a model for justice and democracy. However the Court is not exempted from scrutiny, and critics question the increasing politicized nature of the Court, from the appointment process to the nature of their decisions in landmark cases like; Dred Scott v. Sandford, Roe v. Wade to Bush v. Gore. Based on empirical evidence, this essay argues that the United States Supreme Court today is severely influenced by politics and not as much by law- at least in practice. Indeed, robust partisanship of the political interests of the President and Congress imposes on the constitutional function of the Court.

Is the United States Constitution undemocratic? After reading this text by Robert A. Dahl, I reflected on the history and present day of the United States. I pondered over whether we truly live in a democratic society which ensures our say as the people. Although there are infinite definitions to what a democracy is, I have concluded that the constitution contains flaws that prove it to be undemocratic. In this paper, I will discuss the constitution’s failure to be democratic through exhibiting slavery, suffrage, and the electoral college.

The Framer’s notion of a republic, or democratic republic form of government, rested on the necessity to limit the formation and success of factions. Yet, as Dahl argued, the irony of Madison’s aversions to factions is that, not long after the ratification of the

First, let’s clarify that the Supreme Court is the court of the land. After reading the book of Cheeseman and some research from the website that the Checks and Balances is needed because according to Muller “it is the framers of the Constitution designed the U.S. government so that each branch had a check on the others. In this way, no one branch would have absolute authority. Judicial review is the main way the Supreme Court can check the legislative branch's power. If a case before the court raises a constitutional question, the justices may decide a law violates the Constitution. Congress then has the power to pass another law to override that court ruling. Of course, that law, if challenged, would be subject to further judicial review” (Muller,2013).

In discussing the Madisonian Dilemma, one must first ask, “How do you give government enough authority to preserve social order and communal values, but not so much that it places unfair and inappropriate limits on individual freedom of choice?” (Bond & Smith 2013, p. 111) This delicate balance between governmental rights and individual freedoms has been a source of much contention and debate. James Madison, a primary framer of the Constitution and author of 30 of the Federalist Papers, believed that the only way this balance of power could be achieved was through controlling the effects of factions through a representative government, fragmenting the power of that government and creating a system of checks and balances within, and

An introductory course on American politics, as expected, addresses checks and balances, the constitutional system, and federalism. In addition, the course offers students a better understanding of democracy, political participation, power struggles. Whether rooted in history or focused on abstract ideas, such a course can help students better understand contemporary issues. Students can apply their new knowledge to be better informed about current politics. This paper explores three pressing issues: judicial review, political behavior, and race and politics. These concepts will be examined with examples to give the reader a sense of how to analytically explore political issues.